I wrote this op-ed a couple of days before taking part in the Bush visit protest rally behind the white barricades at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday 23 October - a rally I was glad not to miss, because the political symbolism of what happened that day at our Parliament House was so striking. For good descriptions, see Margo Kingston’s Webdiary, 24 October 2003:

"Living with Bush for a day: Canberra Webdiarist reports"
"Parliament greets Bush: A day in the life of our faltering democracy".

In a sea of generally laudatory press op-eds up to and including 23 October, my downbeat take on the Bush visit was somewhat unusual. But after the jarring mood in and around Parliament House on the Thursday , the tide turned a little. By the weekend, our media saw Hu as the conqueror, and Bush as a bit of an embarrassment.

My thanks as ever to the "Canberra Times" for setting an example to larger newspapers by giving a contrarian voice a go. At times like this I am proud that I live in Canberra.

TK 2.11.2003

 

US ties jeopardise ordinary Australians

"Canberra Times", opinion page, 23 October 2003

 

Asians know American ‘friendships’ are unreliable, says Tony Kevin

 

 

President Bush’s visit will be a hard exercise to pull off successfully. It is, of its nature, a deeply polarising event in Australia.

For Bush, war on terror and economic policy are linked issues. The "war" helps build US-led global coalitions against a claimed global terrorist enemy, thus enhancing US power and access to resources.

Military spending also supports the sagging US economy.

Bush and Howard will discuss the war on terror, and Howard’s hoped-for free trade agreement (FTA). Bush will say warm things about the FTA, and Howard will say how valuable Bush’s words are.

But everyone knows that whatever Bush says is not bankable, because the US Congress will decide the terms of any FTA with Australia.

Why would Congress start to give Australia any particular trade favours in 2003-2004? Under pressure from powerful US domestic economic lobbies feeling the pinch of a tightening US economy, Congress will drive a hard bargain that will disadvantage Australia’s economy.

Howard - having promised so much from his close public identification with Bush - may then try as Prime Minister to drive Australian acceptance of an FTA that is bad for Australia, in order to save political face.

US-Australian security cooperation will be discussed but dramatic outcomes are unlikely.

Whether 15,000 US troops would ever base here is less important than that it be discussed.

This would reinforce the perception Howard wants emphasised - that Australia is indeed a US "deputy sheriff" or "sheriff" for Asia.

Such apparently clumsy phrases (no matter who uses them) are not accidental, but intended to nurture a regional perception of Australia and to accustom Australians to it.

After 9/11, Howard chose an Australian strategy of total declared security identification with Bush’s US.

The strategy causes increasing public disquiet, which Thursday’s Parliament House rally will express.

Howard will use the rally to stir up debate as a domestic wedge strategy, seeking to portray critics as anti-American and irresponsible about Australia's security in the new age of terror.

As to Asia, it is clear by now that behind the diplomatic protocol tasks left mostly to Alexander Downer - Howard cares little whether Australia is liked in Asia or not.

He thinks that Australia is becoming more respected in Asia as a country closely aligned to the US in national security terms, and that is what matters to him.

He is wrong.

Asian region governments are not naive about the nature of US "friendship" towards Australia.

They know it is as transitory and unreliable in the longer-term as any other Bush administration "friendships".

In the neo-conservative view of US interests, Australia counts for far less than Asia.

Meanwhile, Australia steadily drifts further from Asia.

Free gifts that come with no counter-obligation are little valued.

Australia offers free gifts for the US in terms of the latter’s vision for Asian regional security.

Take the "proliferation security initiative".

At the Bush ranch, Howard readily assented to Australia’s role as the US pig in the North Korean minefield.

A few months later, Australia duly mounted a diplomatic conference on interdicting North Korean vessels at sea outside UN authority, proposing "reforms" in international maritime law to make such piracy legal.

Then Australia hosted much-publicised naval exercises off Australia to trial the concept.

In Howard's own terms, this initiative was a complete success. He does not seem to care about its longer-term risks to Australian security.

By cooperating with enthusiasm in the invasions and intimidations that are Bush’s war on terror, Howard stokes views especially in the Islamic part of Asia that Australia is anti-Muslim.

The latest spat with Mahathir is proof of how seriously Australia’s regional standing has declined.

Mahathir says what others think, but are too polite to say.

The Bali tragedy brought political benefit to Howard in seeming to validate to Australians his spurious argument that Australia could not "opt out of" the global war on terror.

The Bali bombing was definitely targeted at Australia, but not because of our "values".

It was blow-back for Australian actions in recent years - the East Timor intervention as seen by nationalists in Indonesia, border security cruelties since 2001, taking part in US-led invasions of Afghanistan and (this after Bali) Iraq.

Now in Southeast Asia, Australia offers police cooperation against terrorism.

Asian governments pretend to welcome such assistance but in reality attach little significance to it.

The farce of the "escape" of a suspected terrorist mastermind in the Philippines during a Howard visit was only the most obvious studied rebuttal.

But again, the motive for Howard in offering anti-terrorist assistance to the region is largely domestic.

It plays well in Australia.

By creating an appearance in Australia of independent Australian security action, it offsets growing concern among thoughtful Australians that Howard has so tightly yoked us to Bush’s military chariot, thereby jeopardising ordinary Australians' personal security.

 

Tony Kevin is a Visiting Fellow, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, and a former Australian diplomat 1968-98.